From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5397F165.7060006@meshcoding.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:04:21 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <53957653.5000406@meshcoding.com> <1402334059-28681-1-git-send-email-gaul@web-yard.de> <53962199.4060202@meshcoding.com> <539628F6.9070706@web-yard.de> <53969F3D.5040306@meshcoding.com> <5397267F.4040107@web-yard.de> <539726E7.9070500@meshcoding.com> <5397280D.5050608@web-yard.de> In-Reply-To: <5397280D.5050608@web-yard.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="irj7AgQ02gW2Goiqui58coG80sQof3wTa" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] remove unnecessary logspam Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIEdhdWw=?= Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --irj7AgQ02gW2Goiqui58coG80sQof3wTa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/06/14 17:45, Andr=C3=A9 Gaul wrote: > Am 10.06.2014 17:40, schrieb Antonio Quartulli: >> Oh you are right. I should have continued using mutt... >=20 > hehe, I'm glad it works now! :) I'll resubmit in a minute as a new thre= ad. >=20 > btw: do you have any pointers to documentation that can help me > understand why the kernel developers still use email as the primary > channel for submitting patches? Given the fact that git gracefully > handles the transmission of code, the handling of all code via email > appears archaic and too complicated to me. (no flame war intended, I > just want to learn about the reasons!) ;) Honestly I don't know if there is any documentation. Sending a patch to a mailing list is a way to ask for a review/evaluation, which works well so I don't see a clear reason why it should be changed (just that it appears archaic does not seem to be a good reason). Only maintainer having their tree on a trusted host can send pull requests without attaching the patches (we do send pull requests along with the patches exactly for this reason..). And actually git also provides many comfortable commands to do that :) so...! :) Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli --irj7AgQ02gW2Goiqui58coG80sQof3wTa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTl/FrAAoJEJgn97Bh2u9eJ/UP/jBzVGp0tRrECUlRv/QmZKzh xVt3A9yFYNQpxpdHwzraN271oAqEpiG4XEeKKSV+kCkb7IR0YD3s1yJI2WhaKI27 H5BUYuhk3/nsoIqQXKtEbgH8CQLwmrKDPyEJ8vMwFqfgLB3yVqmTFhMUkw+DcAeN cszZ2mmDOSa2L330CJfyQ9wqGyX1KG55kl3t9wWkiEpGS7cX2HBJi6Y40M+LSi4g mhLIyHOqqYqTDUzyi5s/vkxZOW2WQSiA0DUmJpXk7FmVvdnZe16R49WShdAtNliX PePCQmOAhrEZk1p1k8OvdsU1y1g5m1fjeHRdBuI73FttenBImQiP34wt8T4Y5pow VRdKk0J2eGjqvJqzrf6gPPJ2OvJxxuqNKYRwU+iQ5yaqsebw6/6XN13ywebK7Gpx Z02sM0Ubf+Fp/YsS/g+eWOfigyweGM4W955uv7g58KqYBNfhRDUgkkA/5rJW69Rx 7ijEXDjPkDajdg8Fx3rNhaZM7AKl9Qnftoto4tJjPCOFy4v4LhOQkZzTCMopncbi AmlwEEbLM7EYDo737kDUyDwPebxiJMyuo0QaUx0MyoheJzlr9GRfBGohMURzyQo3 Rvdy71I0uxegLWXw4bo6jbUsw4983RuiNuVtadU9iqUXQxnBGjVcsM9Is1zB2Z// MTlu59++S61monkRaJCE =b/7J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --irj7AgQ02gW2Goiqui58coG80sQof3wTa--